Constituents Camaras and Cellphones Confiscated by LEO's

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Worthless pos politician...nothing like infringing on the people rights...While letting the Media do the eact thing you are trying to stop the public from doing...

Make sure you watch the videos of this BS at the link below...

Cops Confiscate Cameras at Ohio Congressman’s Town Hall

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 24, 2011
» Cops Confiscate Cameras at Ohio Congressman’s Town Hall Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

A congressman from Ohio had cops grab the cameras of constituents during a town hall meeting. Steve Chabot, a Republican, had cell phones and cameras confiscated in order to “prevent an embarrassing Youtube video from making the rounds,” according to Carlos Miller, who runs a blog documenting efforts by the state to stifle the First Amendment rights of photographers.

See video of the incident below.

Police said the cameras were taken “to protect the constituents.” A local television station, however, was allowed to videotape the meeting and the brazen move by Chabot and the cops.

Think Progress, the Soros-funded media operation, also reported the incident, primarily because Chabot is an establishment Republican and protesters outside the event called for more taxes. The Democrat blog reported:

Media were permitted to record the event, making the ban on citizen cameras all the more baffling. Clearly no “security” threat existed; rather, as one of Chabot’s staffers told ThinkProgress, they wanted to “prevent” people from “making a show” of the event. Indeed, Chabot and his staff were worried enough about citizens voicing their anger at his policies that they only accepted pre-screened questions chosen by the congressman’s staff.

This should not be perplexing – the controlled corporate media can be trusted to not embarrass Rep. Chabot, at least not on points that matter, while citizens cannot.

It is also interesting that Think Progress attributes the current economic implosion to Chabot and the Republicans when Democrat Obama is in the White House and allegedly in control.

In fact, neither Obama or the Republicans control the economy. It is controlled by a Federal Reserve that has doubled the monetary base since last August.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I'm not sure about this one, the first issue that makes me question the truthfulness is the website and groups associated with it. They let the media keep filming so they didn't really infringe on the first amendment. The other issue that seems to indicate this was staged was the fact that the officer said something to imply they were already advised cameras would not be allowed to protect constituents. I don't know for sure either way especially given the fact we know Alex Jones and his website are full of lies. I am thinking someone saw an ad for the event saying no cameras and decided to protest it through civil disobedience. I think it was clearly a stupid idea to take the cameras but at the same time I don't think it was really an evil plan because they didn't violate anyone's rights and if they really were up to no good they would've deleted the video evidence when they had the cameras.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I'm not sure about this one, the first issue that makes me question the truthfulness is the website and groups associated with it. They let the media keep filming so they didn't really infringe on the first amendment. The other issue that seems to indicate this was staged was the fact that the officer said something to imply they were already advised cameras would not be allowed to protect constituents. I don't know for sure either way especially given the fact we know Alex Jones and his website are full of lies. I am thinking someone saw an ad for the event saying no cameras and decided to protest it through civil disobedience. I think it was clearly a stupid idea to take the cameras but at the same time I don't think it was really an evil plan because they didn't violate anyone's rights and if they really were up to no good they would've deleted the video evidence when they had the cameras.

I don't doubt they were up to no good. But who defines who the press are? If I have a blog, I'm press too. If this shill of a gubmint dope can't take the heat, he picked a helluva time to join Hell's kitchen.

You know we'd be barking up a storm if this were a lib congressman. What's good for the goose...
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
so since it was alex jones site (and i am no fan of alex) the video showing the leo taking cellphone camaras was not real??

Elected officials at a public meeting have no precieved right of privacy and yes the publics right to take pictures in a public place at a public meeting is an infringement of their rights...the key being public...stopping them would be bad enough, but conficating their personal property is way over the top...
 
Last edited:

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I don't doubt they were up to no good. But who defines who the press are? If I have a blog, I'm press too. If this shill of a gubmint dope can't take the heat, he picked a helluva time to join Hell's kitchen.

You know we'd be barking up a storm if this were a lib congressman. What's good for the goose...

I don't doubt they were up to no good. But who defines who the press are? If I have a blog, I'm press too. If this shill of a gubmint dope can't take the heat, he picked a helluva time to join Hell's kitchen.

You know we'd be barking up a storm if this were a lib congressman. What's good for the goose...

If you have the press credentials then they cannot take the camera away but these people never claimed to be members of the press. I agree that taking the cameras was a poor decision and it wouldn't matter what side of the aisle he was on. We don't have all the facts as to what constituents they were protecting or why they were protecting them. The article claims they were taking the cameras to stop an embarrassing YouTube video but the cop didn't care that things were still being recorded by members of the media.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
so since it was alex jones site (and i am no fan of alex) the video showing the leo taking cellphone camaras was not real??

And elected pfficials at a public meeting have no precieved right of privacy and yes the publics right to take pictures ina public place at a public meeting is an infringement of their rights...the key being public...

I'm just saying I am not sure about it especially given the groups involved. The cop clearly indicated that they were already told they couldn't have the cameras so I am wondering how public this meeting was. The people involved have clear credibility issues and I don't want to just say this guy was wrong when I am getting facts from notorious liars. If it is as portrayed in this article then these people had every right to film the meeting and if it were me I would have done things the hard way as offered by the cop.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
We basically agree but I am just skeptical of the source.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
As i said, i am no fan of Alex and prison planet or infowars, but as i stated there is no precieved right to privacy when a elected official speaks in public...we seen this crap back before the the 2010 elections when the Tea Party people were busting on the elected democrats during Town Hall meetings....this time it is a Republican...and it makes no difference, neother party has an exclusive on stupidity and doing unconstitutional bs....

Now if this was a invitation only closed meeting, thats something else, but nothing at this point goes to that argument...so until proven different, ill take it at face value and use it to the agenda of beating these [oliticans over the head with the info that is ot there...
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
As i said, i am no fan of Alex and prison planet or infowars, but as i stated there is no precieved right to privacy when a elected official speaks in public...we seen this crap back before the the 2010 elections when the Tea Party people were busting on the elected democrats during Town Hall meetings....this time it is a Republican...and it makes no difference, neother party has an exclusive on stupidity and doing unconstitutional bs....

Now if this was a invitation only closed meeting, thats something else, but nothing at this point goes to that argument...so until proven different, ill take it at face value and use it to the agenda of beating these [oliticans over the head with the info that is ot there...

It looks like it was a public event and they posted signs about no cameras. The reps camp is saying that they were doing a Q&A session and they thought personal questions might be asked so they were trying to protect their privacy. The translation is all those people in yellow didn't like me so I thought I could get away with taking their cameras but knew I couldn't kick the press out. It seems he was concerned they were going to test him and he was scared it would make him look bad.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

mcavoy33

Seasoned Expediter
As i said, i am no fan of Alex and prison planet or infowars, but as i stated there is no precieved right to privacy when a elected official speaks in public...we seen this crap back before the the 2010 elections when the Tea Party people were busting on the elected democrats during Town Hall meetings....this time it is a Republican...and it makes no difference, neother party has an exclusive on stupidity and doing unconstitutional bs....

Now if this was a invitation only closed meeting, thats something else, but nothing at this point goes to that argument...so until proven different, ill take it at face value and use it to the agenda of beating these [oliticans over the head with the info that is ot there...

Rules are rules imo. If the rule was there are no cameras at a meeting, then why should they be allowed to break the rules?

If the federal government doesn't allow guns into public buildings, has security and a metal dectector to check the rules, should the security not be allowed to enforce the rules even though it's a public meeting?

The people were breaking the stated rules, so they had them confiscated. Tome it shouldn't matter if it's a gun, phone or a pet.

If you follow the rules, you won't have a problem. The people broke the rules andgot what they deserved imo.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
The thing that alex does not say is it was posted outside in more then one place that no camreas were allowed in the town hall.Just look at the first sentence

A congressman from Ohio had cops grab the cameras of constituents during a town hall meeting

Alex Jones implys the congressman ordered this while the meeting was going on.Not the case.They were warned befor they even entered the building.By the way the democrats have done this also.

American Power: Change! Rep. David Scott Bans Video Cameras From Town Halls!

Like it or the person holding the event sets the rules its that simple.He says no cameras then no cameras these people knew that there camers would be taken yet they tried to film anyway.Why?Because they knew it would make a republican congressman look bad.Also what Jones does not show is the very large group of liberal protesters that were outside the meeting.With Jones you never get the whole story.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Has long as it is a PRIVATE or BY INVITATION meeting yes they set the rules..but when the meeting is open to the public, any rule that is imposed must be legal...madison vs marbury set the premise for "judical review"..but it was also the 1st time the the SC had to rule if a law was unconstitutional...and in doing so they maintained that an unconstitutional law (rule) can not be enforced...

So just making a rule, does not make it legal. Posting a sign or telling people that they can not bring a camara to a public event, doesn't cut it constutionally or make it legal and or enforceable...LEO's try to enforce laws that they know are unlawful but on the books all the time, but when it comes to court they are thrown out, because unlawful laws are not enforceable....and just because they are on the books doesn't make them legal...

So when it gets to the point that this was a private or by invitation only event and the public was not welcome then yes the rule would stand, but no where has it been said it was a private meeting, it was a Town Hall for constituents..doesn't mention private.....

And a gun is not banned from all public places...ie parks....yes they are banned in some, like schools and court houses, but not all public places...and to compare a gun ban to the confication of a camara and or cell phone in a public place, as was pointed out to greg on the issue of a uniform not showing professionalism is, silly...
 
Last edited:

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Why?Because they knew it would make a republican congressman look bad.Also what Jones does not show is the very large group of liberal protesters that were outside the meeting.With Jones you never get the whole story.

The protesters were all those people in yellow shirts. The issue I had was as you also stated the credibility of the groups involved, you can also see in my comments prior to this I was thinking it was a setup. I was thinking that he rented out a public space making it a private area at least temporarily. I did a little digging and found this was a public event in a public space so like them or not they had every right to be filming. The reps staff is saying they were trying to protect people that would be asking personal questions which it is clearly pointless because if they wanted privacy they wouldn't ask the question in a public forum in front of TV cameras.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Here is what I found.From the way I read it they can in fact ban the use of cameras even at public meetings.It seems most states have their own rules on this.


Ohio Recording Law | Citizen Media Law Project

I have yet been able to find a law or a court order on the federal level that bars this from happening.There for not sure how this was unconstitutional.YEs there is the open meetings act however it does not adress this as even though it is an open meeting they do not have to let the public participate.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
A few of you are talking about those who make the rules and all that but miss an important point - we have not just a right to know what goes on in those little town halls but those who are elected have an obligation to be honest and open about it.

NO rule making, no armed guards confiscating property.
 

mcavoy33

Seasoned Expediter
Worthless pos politician...nothing like infringing on the people rights...]

Whether the law is constitutional or not, I could care less if their rights were trampled on. They deserved it imo. I'm glad my government is discouraging this type of unlawful behavior.

There are far more productive things that these people could be doing with their lives if they seriously want to make this a better country.

If you had a problem with one of LoadOne's policies that you thoughtwasunjust, do you think you would have more success getting your point across by protesting and breaking the rules in protest, or do you think taking a positive and proactive approach, gaining the support of other drivers and presenting a more beficial proposal to Load One ownership, which scenario would be more successful?

I'm a big believer in rewarding positive behavior and I aceept that we must have punishments for bad behavior.

But when people act in a manner that is negative, **** disturbsand uses up gov't resources, I'm glad their behavior is punished.

It isn't a cop's job to decide whatlaws are constitutional, merely to enforce it as it is.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Whether the law is constitutional or not, I could care less if their rights were trampled on. They deserved it imo. I'm glad my government is discouraging this type of unlawful behavior.

That's the same attitude that got us into this mess. Unlawful according to whom?

There are far more productive things that these people could be doing with their lives if they seriously want to make this a better country.

Same could be said about the congressmen. But they refuse to do it, BECAUSE they stray away from the Constitution.

If you had a problem with one of LoadOne's policies that you thoughtwasunjust, do you think you would have more success getting your point across by protesting and breaking the rules in protest, or do you think taking a positive and proactive approach, gaining the support of other drivers and presenting a more beficial proposal to Load One ownership, which scenario would be more successful?

Little different when you're talking 100 drivers vs millions of voters who don't give a crap.

I'm a big believer in rewarding positive behavior and I aceept that we must have punishments for bad behavior.

The government is just the opposite. Come to think about it, our society is too.

But when people act in a manner that is negative, **** disturbsand uses up gov't resources, I'm glad their behavior is punished.

Then I'm curious to know what you would think about a full blown revolution.

It isn't a cop's job to decide whatlaws are constitutional, merely to enforce it as it is.

On the contrary. If a cop does not uphold the rights of people, they can be sued... and sued hard! They have what is called a bond, which goes toward this. If they lose that bond to someone who successfully sues them, well... it ain't pretty.

Besides... there wasn't a law there. It was a rule... like in a game of Sorry. Some players (the MSM) got to have their cameras there. Other players (the public) didn't. Preferential treatment for those with "credentials"? I call BS on that one. The congressman just didn't want his chicken feathers ruffled, is all.
 
Last edited:
Top